mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00008186.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14",
    "document_number": "516",
    "date": "11/21/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 14 of 17\n\n\"that false memories can be described with confidence, detail, and emotion\" without \"deliberately lying.\" And fifth, that \"suggestive activities\" can explain how alleged victims of sexual assault can develop later \"memories\" of sexual abuse that did not actually happen. As part of this last opinion, the notice states that \"Dr. Loftus would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case.\" Id. at 2.\n\nThe Government seeks to exclude most or all of these opinions because they are unreliable, fall within the ken of the jury, impermissibly bear on witness credibility, or act as vehicles for factual narratives of the case. Def. Br. at 30–35.\n\nAs a preliminary matter, based on her expert notice and the attached CV, the Court finds Dr. Loftus to be qualified to offer these opinions based on both her experience and formal education. Dr. Loftus is a frequent expert witness in state courts. Id. at 19 (collecting cases). But the Court also observes that a significant number of federal courts have excluded her expert opinions for lack of reliability and fit. E.g., United States v. Shiraishi, No. CR 17-00582 JMS-RLP, 2019 WL 1386365, at *4 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2019); R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01056, 2019 WL 6053223, at *10 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (\"[P]roffered expert testimony by Dr. Loftus which simply restates matters within the common understanding of lay jurors is inadmissible.\"); United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d 3, 4 (D.D.C. 2006); United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming denial of funds to hire Dr. Loftus); United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042, 1051-52 (7th Cir. 1992). But see Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14-CV-00877-PSG, 2015 WL 6954967, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (admitting Dr. Loftus's testimony).\n\nThe Court will deny in part and grant in part the Government's motion as to Dr. Loftus. To start, the Court will admit Dr. Loftus's opinions about how memories can become\n\n14\n\nDOJ-OGR-00008186",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 516 Filed 11/21/21 Page 14 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"that false memories can be described with confidence, detail, and emotion\" without \"deliberately lying.\" And fifth, that \"suggestive activities\" can explain how alleged victims of sexual assault can develop later \"memories\" of sexual abuse that did not actually happen. As part of this last opinion, the notice states that \"Dr. Loftus would identify some of the suggestive activities that occurred in the current case.\" Id. at 2.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government seeks to exclude most or all of these opinions because they are unreliable, fall within the ken of the jury, impermissibly bear on witness credibility, or act as vehicles for factual narratives of the case. Def. Br. at 30–35.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As a preliminary matter, based on her expert notice and the attached CV, the Court finds Dr. Loftus to be qualified to offer these opinions based on both her experience and formal education. Dr. Loftus is a frequent expert witness in state courts. Id. at 19 (collecting cases). But the Court also observes that a significant number of federal courts have excluded her expert opinions for lack of reliability and fit. E.g., United States v. Shiraishi, No. CR 17-00582 JMS-RLP, 2019 WL 1386365, at *4 (D. Haw. Mar. 27, 2019); R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., No. 3:16-CV-01056, 2019 WL 6053223, at *10 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 15, 2019) (\"[P]roffered expert testimony by Dr. Loftus which simply restates matters within the common understanding of lay jurors is inadmissible.\"); United States v. Libby, 461 F. Supp. 2d 3, 4 (D.D.C. 2006); United States v. Carter, 410 F.3d 942, 950 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. George, 975 F.2d 1431, 1432 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming denial of funds to hire Dr. Loftus); United States v. Curry, 977 F.2d 1042, 1051-52 (7th Cir. 1992). But see Lam v. City of San Jose, No. 14-CV-00877-PSG, 2015 WL 6954967, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (admitting Dr. Loftus's testimony).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court will deny in part and grant in part the Government's motion as to Dr. Loftus. To start, the Court will admit Dr. Loftus's opinions about how memories can become",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "14",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008186",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Dr. Loftus"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Hawaii",
      "Pennsylvania",
      "California"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "11/21/21",
      "Mar. 27, 2019",
      "Nov. 15, 2019",
      "Nov. 10, 2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "516",
      "CR 17-00582 JMS-RLP",
      "3:16-CV-01056",
      "14-CV-00877-PSG"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the admissibility of expert testimony by Dr. Loftus. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}